Trump Confronts ABC Reporter about Lack of March for Life Coverage
Muir asked the President, ‚ÄúLet me just ask you while we‚Äôre standing outside, could you hear the voices from the Women‚Äôs March here in Washington? We know there were more than a million people who turned out, and you are their president now too.
President Trump responded, ‚ÄúThat‚Äôs true,‚ÄĚ prompting Muir to ask if he could hear from the crowds gathered near the White House.
This inquiry led Trump to turn the tables on Muir, confronting him about the media‚Äôs selective coverage of marches when pro-life people are involved. ‚ÄúNo, I couldn‚Äôt hear them, but you will have a large crowd on Friday, too, which is mostly pro-life people. You‚Äôre going to have a lot of people coming on Friday. And I will say this, and I didn‚Äôt realize this. But I was told. You will have a very large crowd of people. I don‚Äôt know as large or larger. Some people said it will be larger. Pro-life people and they say the press...
Indicting ABC for this lack of previous coverage forced them to give major attention to it on GMA the morning of the rally. They were shamed of their obvious bias and being called out finally by a President.
"If you are more passionate about politics than advancing the gospel of Christ among the lost, then perhaps you should ask yourself where you are placing your hope and which kingdom are you are a citizen of. (John 18:36, Phil. 3:20) If you are broken, depressed, in despair or suicidal over who is in political power then it is a pretty good indication that you have made power and politics an idol. The kingdom of God does not advance through political power but through the gospel. The gospel can flourish in any condition and under any government. It has advanced under the most cruel and oppressive conditions ... but that is not to say we should not promote just laws so we can live a peaceful life ... we should. But that is not our hope. Those who are citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20) are pilgrims and sojourners here who are "looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God‚ÄĚ (Hebrews 11:9‚Äď10). from https://www.monergism.com/blog/political-idols
SteveR wrote: If you play the Executive Order game, you don't have to follow law. You just need to say its in the vital interest of the Country. Cute Trick
Under Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, the president has authority to use a proclamation (that would be an executive order in case you missed it) to suspend the entry of ‚Äúany aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,‚ÄĚ for however long he deems necessary. This provision was included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
If memory serves, Penny, it was certainly mentioned on the PBS news hour that one woman wanted to be in the women's rights march who was also pro-life, but wasn't welcomed. So, such things are covered in the liberal media. But what was left out in the ABC transcript? Hmm, the Washingtontimes, says it was, [URL=http://tinyurl.com/gmc3vq9]]]http://tinyurl.com/gmc3vq9 (ABC deletes Trump‚Äôs March for Life reference in its online transcript)[/URL]. Don't say I don't reference Right-Wing sources. But again, PBS, more of a left wing source in many of your eyes, certainly did reference it, it did a whole story on it! [URL=http://tinyurl.com/h6o9hug]]]http://tinyurl.com/h6o9hug (Anti-abortion activists welcome Trump administration support)[/URL]
Again, I'll point out, [URL=http://tinyurl.com/hzvme5g]]]http://tinyurl.com/hzvme5g (Discerning the News)[/URL], look at more than one news source.
SteveR, Islam is a religion like Communism, [URL=http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Sene/morethanreligion.html]]]http://tinyurl.com/hge7ow7 (Islam: More than a Religion)[/URL], and Christians and even nominal ones should be given preference over those of [URL=http://tinyurl.com/3kjl3]]]http://tinyurl.com/3kjl3 (Islam: The Religion of Peace)[/URL].
let me help your discussion wrote: ‚ÄúUnder federal law, the executive branch [of the United States of America] is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, US Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that √ā‚Ä¶ religion [among other things] ‚Ä¶ was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.‚ÄĚ And it is in the federal statutes! ‚ÄúMoreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a ‚Äėrefugee‚Äô as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien√ā‚Äôs religion: The term ‚Äėrefugee‚Äô means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person√ā‚Äôs nationality ‚Ä¶ and who is unable or unwilling to return to ‚Ä¶ that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ‚Ä¶ religion [among other things] ‚Ä¶[.]‚ÄĚ http://tinyurl.com/pfee4nq
If you play the Executive Order game, you don't have to follow law. You just need to say its in the vital interest of the Country. Cute Trick
SteveR wrote: We need a thread on Trump blocking entry for refugees and US Visa holders from 7 countries. It appears there will be religious vetting when and if travel resumes
‚ÄúUnder federal law, the executive branch [of the United States of America] is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, US Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that √ā‚Ä¶ religion [among other things] ‚Ä¶ was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.‚ÄĚ
And it is in the federal statutes!
‚ÄúMoreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a ‚Äėrefugee‚Äô as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien√ā‚Äôs religion: The term ‚Äėrefugee‚Äô means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person√ā‚Äôs nationality ‚Ä¶ and who is unable or unwilling to return to ‚Ä¶ that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ‚Ä¶ religion [among other things] ‚Ä¶[.]‚ÄĚ
yes he did scold them and Pence came with his wife to deliver a speech at the event.
the sell outs in the music industry, the rich women who demand that women's issues excludes prolife (demeaning motherhood)... they might wisen up to realize....
that the spirit cooking imagery is out there, we have seen those with the occultic videos and some of what they do for their personal entertainment, even as of a few weeks ago, one famous star was releasing her images of the room where the chicken sacrifices take place.
their baal worship will not be accepted by the public, even as it came out, worked double time to release weird sitcoms and a boy dressed as a girl on a magazine cover.
their baal worship once it is known will not be accepted by the public, even in their sins, they have their limits.
the snowflakes may have made fools of themselves, but if it ever gets to them what's behind the wizard's curtain, even they will suddenly look like moral fundamentalists.
ABC Censors Trump Slamming Media for Not Covering March for Life From Transcript of Interview
On Thursday afternoon, our friends at RedState flagged this peculiar development that ABC News transcript excluded an exchange from the David Muir-President Trump interview where Trump scolded Muir for the media‚Äôs lack of coverage of the March for Life versus the Women‚Äôs March on Washington.
With an eagle eye for this detail, RedState‚Äôs ‚ÄúStreiff‚ÄĚ provided a generous nod to Nicholas Fondacaro‚Äôs blog from Wednesday night and concluded it‚Äôd be pertinent to check out the full transcript.
That‚Äôs where Streiff ran into trouble:
Guess what? This entire exchange is simply omitted from the ABC transcript.
Is it a clerical oversight? Did they not like seeing powdered and blow-dried empty suit that runs their news operation stuttering away? Did it interfere with their narrative about Trump? Did they, in short, intentionally cut it? I don‚Äôt know anything more than that, but the omission seems to make Donald Trump‚Äôs point about March for Life coverage in a much stronger way than Trump did. In other words, that they‚Äôre so committed to not covering the size of the March they couldn‚Äôt even let this point stand on their website.
IE, see or read the following This was an interesting story on the PBS NewsHour tonight, or I should say Friday night. [URL=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/anti-abortion-activists-welcome-trump-administration-support/]]]http://tinyurl.com/h6o9hug (Anti-abortion activists welcome Trump administration support) [/URL]. Not only is a video included, but also there the full transcript to it. It does show that's something other than conservative media covers events like this. I think it gave it a fair hearing too.
The broadcast networks and news outlets have long misrepresented the March for Life. In response, the Media Research Center, along with other organizations, formed an Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues to hold the media accountable.
On Wednesday, the alliance announced its second annual #CoverTheMarch campaign as MRC President Brent Bozell and other leaders in the pro-life movement called out the media for their coverage.
The alliance encourages the public to contact the broadcast networks and details the outrageous March for Life coverage in past years:
In 2015, only CBS mentioned the march, allotting just 15 seconds. That was only one second for every 13,000 people who put work, school and other obligations aside to travel from as far away as the West Coast. That was only one second for every 3.8 million babies aborted in the last four decades.
In 2014, the networks devoted 46 seconds to the hundreds of thousands marching in Washington, D.C. Yet, ABs, NBs and CBS spent six times that on the National Zoo‚Äôs new panda cub and four-and-a-half times that on the Climate March.
Since 2013, the networks have devoted just 100 seconds to the March for Life in following news shows ‚Äď slightly more than they might have spent broadcasting a couple of burger ads
s c wrote: If there was a lack of coverage,we wouldn't be hearing about the lack of coverage.
It is statistically provable
"It‚Äôs called adding insult to injury: pro-life women (and men) have not only been rejected by the Women‚Äôs March on Washington but also by the liberal media.
This month, two similar events are happening in Washington, D.C. Both pertain to women. One attracted an estimated 500,000 Americans this year, the other boasts tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands marchers every year. But one main difference ‚Äď a difference the media care about ‚Äď is agenda: one is pro-abortion, the other is pro-life.
During their morning and evening news shows, the three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) covered the women‚Äôs march 129 times more than they did the 2016 March for Life last year. And it‚Äôs anyone‚Äôs guess as to whether or not they will cover the 2017 March for Life Friday.
ABC, CBS and NBC spent at least one hour, 15 minutes and 18 seconds on the women‚Äôs march. But for the 2016 March for Life, they devoted an embarrassing 35 seconds (22 seconds following the march, 13 before)."
Probably, Mike, because, well, to put it very politely, unoffical counts can be slanted. Apparently by how many people took the metro. [URL=http://www.newsweek.com/trump-inauguration-numbers-how-many-attended-545467]]]Inauguration and Women‚Äôs March, By The Numbers[/URL]. It isn't said in this article but I read one from ABC which pointed out that the Trump numbers could have been down because of rain.
The march was really special today!!! All the speakers were very inspirational and the crowds enthusiastic. The Pro-Life lawmakers were unabashed and determined to direct funds away from Planned Parenthood and give them to real women's health centers. And ABC News was publicly called out at the rally.
From the link: "While no official crowd estimates were available, the turnout was clearly larger than in recent years, when abortion opponents had less political clout."
One way to minimize the count is to say no official estimate is available. Since when does an estimate need be "official"?
From the link: "Americans remain deeply divided on abortion. The latest Gallup survey, released last spring, found that 47 percent of Americans described themselves as pro-abortion rights and 46 percent as anti-abortion."
ABC's version reveals their deceitful heart. 2 sides presented, one is "pro-abortion rights," the other "anti-abortion." Rights vs the anti rights. Notice the lack of portrayal of what it actually is? No pro-death vs pro-life mentioned.